LasersHurt:tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Stone Meadow:g4lt: Stone Meadow: g4lt: I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer

You mean like this one?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one

Of course it wasn't entirely printed in plastic. No one suggested it was. Plastic barrels (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are available. Plastic (polymer) frames are available. Plastic magazines are printable. In other words, plastic guns can be made, and will be if legislation does tighten up considerably. Heck, the guy who built that gun first built a plastic .22LR through which he fired 200 rounds without failure to test it. Way back in 1987 the Patent Office issued a patent for a plastic/ceramic .22 pistol. Link

So quit quibbling over the reality of plastic guns. They're here and they will greatly undermine detection technologies like what's highlighted in this thread. Even if the barrel is steel it will just look like a pen in his pocket. Put the bullets or magazine in another pocket and the weapon is undetectable by this technology.

I think I was rather clear that I was awaiting the day when MOST of a gun could be printed. The Lower Receiver, while an important part, is still much less than the majority of the gun. I had nothing to say about the state of the art in plastic guns other than I wanted to see a Solidoodle for one. The lower receiver IS a step in the right direction, as you can mail-order all the parts save that one, so you can make a gun BECAUSE of your 3D printer, you just can't make one with it yet. Solidoodle or GTFO, in a nutshell.

Rincewind53:WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?

I don't think it should be allowed, but there is a difference between using technology like this to find weapons and weed.

LasersHurt:tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

You and I have wildly differing definitions of good governance. From what I am gathering from your statements, the end justifies the means. I am strongly against that. The end is important, but using bad means to get to the end is unforgivable. The founders of this country agree with me, you do not. The fact that these things are coded in the highest laws in our land means you had better get a large amount of the populace to agree with you to get it changed (Article V, US Constitution, re: Amendment Process). So our country is agile enough to change things if needed, but not agile enough to slide into tyranny easily.

tgambitg:LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

You and I have wildly differing definitions of good governance. From what I am gathering from your statements, the end justifies the means. I am strongly against that. The end is important, but using bad means to get to the end is unforgivable. The founders of this country agree with me, you do not. The fact that these things are coded in the highest laws in our land means you had better get a large amount of the populace to agree with you to get it changed (Article V, US Constitution, re: Amendment Process). So our country is agile enough to change things if needed, but not agile enough to slide into tyranny easily.

I love when people just jump to a grand conclusion, then judge you from that viewpoint.

LasersHurt:redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.

What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

Admitting that I haven't researched this yet, and I haven't read the rest of tFT yet...

I used to consider myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but this line from TFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows [the pigs] to view concealed weapons from a distance" ... kind of threw me. I parse it one of two ways:* "Use the Force, Luke"* "Can you scan the gigahertz from my laptop?"

LasersHurt:redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.

What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.

To be more accurate, they put in a mechanism for change, but made sure that it wasn't able to be used on a whim.

LasersHurt:I love when people just jump to a grand conclusion, then judge you from that viewpoint.

I do not believe that.

That is the impression your statements are making. By ignoring the protections set forth in the 4th, you are using the ends (finding people with firearms in public) to justify the means (searching without a warrant or probable cause)

liam76:Rincewind53: WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?

I don't think it should be allowed, but there is a difference between using technology like this to find weapons and weed.

I guess the scanner would probably show different readings, but it would still be illegal.

Sgt.Zim:Admitting that I haven't researched this yet, and I haven't read the rest of tFT yet...

I used to consider myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but this line from TFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows [the pigs] to view concealed weapons from a distance" ... kind of threw me. I parse it one of two ways:* "Use the Force, Luke"* "Can you scan the gigahertz from my laptop?"

LasersHurt:redmid17: What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

I see, a "wise and agile" government is "a piece of shiat idea." Thanks for weighing in.

You're welcome. I'm glad the men who created this country and myself could get that across. If you think our government is stupid now, how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want? Agile government is a bad idea for a reason, and you'll have a difficult time finding one that is wise.

redmid17:how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

I see, a "wise and agile" government is "a piece of shiat idea." Thanks for weighing in.

You're welcome. I'm glad the men who created this country and myself could get that across. If you think our government is stupid now, how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want? Agile government is a bad idea for a reason, and you'll have a difficult time finding one that is wise.

Agreed. A government that can change quickly can turn tyrannical faster than you could stop it. Sure you may have benevolence now, but those same rules that let you change things quickly for the common good can be used to turn things badly just as quickly. If you can't understand that, LasersHurt, you are horribly naive.

LasersHurt:redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.qqq

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

redmid17:redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.qqq

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

LasersHurt:tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

Yep. Because from what I can tell, "good governance" is defined by many as "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."

LasersHurt:redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.

LasersHurt:redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

BraveNewCheneyWorld:R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.

I'd love to see the modern day attack ads that would be aired against the founding fathers, it would be both hilarious and sad.

I mean, Jon Adams told the world that if Jefferson won the election:

"... murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."

redmid17:LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?

You don't get honest discussion works, do you? You're using an arbitrary definition of "agile". We both are, there aren't any specifics on the table, it's just an abstract concept. I'm arguing for something slightly more agile than what we have, because our stuff is practically set in stone right now. There's a lot of ground between there and "anything goes."

LasersHurt:OgreMagi: "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."

I wasn't aware I had advocated this. Because I didn't.

That's exactly what you are advocating if you want to strip away our Constitutional Rights to create an "agile government".

You are arguing government the same way my teenage step-daughter argued it. From a position of pure ignorance and based purely on a mythical outcome that you thought was possible, but ignoring the realities of history and the mistakes made that resulted in misery and death of epic proportions.

LasersHurt:redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?

You don't get honest discussion works, do you? You're using an arbitrary definition of "agile". We both are, there aren't any specifics on the table, it's just an abstract concept. I'm arguing for something slightly more agile than what we have, because our stuff is practically set in stone right now. There's a lot of ground between there and "anything goes."